But you're assuming that diplomacy in this case would work, when it couldn't
Putin is under his impression that he's negotiating from strength, so he can set out the best terms for himself to the weaker party. Ukraine won't accept that, and shouldn't, therfore not taking his demands, not requests, seriously. Why negotiate with a tyrant?
And why should I remove emotive thinking? I can very easily point out a very famous wartime leader from my country, who used very emotive speeches and emotional pleas to the country and its allies. Emotions, as also shown by Ukriane in its daily briefings and social media posts calling out friends and foes, works amazingly, when done properly. Hell, even Hitler used emotion amazingly well to his advantage leading up to WW2. I'd say emotion and war go hand in hand
We don't know diplomacy wouldn't work. All we have is a report from Ukrainian sources, Ukrainska Pravda, that Zelenskyy and Putin were close to an agreement along the lines of what I'm outlining until the UK (Johnson) said that at the behest of the US they don't support a cease-fire and want them to "push" Russia. Again, as I've said, this isn't simple as the West has it's own geopolitical desires decoupled from what's best for the Ukrainian people.
I don't know, and you don't know, what Putin is thinking. None of us do, not us nor the intelligence services of the West. It's the million dollar question Don't delude yourself.
Emotive thinking is great for rallying people to a cause, I agree! But that's not how you think! Churchill was a logical thinker, not an emotive one. Read his writings, in North Africa he knew Wavell was an old, tired leader and wisely moved him to India and replaced him with Auchinleck, who went on to be a brilliant general in the fight against Rommel. Churchill is widely known to sit and think about what he would say for hours on end, rehearrsing the ideas, the phrasings, the everything until it was perfect. He's not an off-the-cuff person.
Hitler, meanwhile, was brilliant militarily when he was logical in his early war years, as exemplified by his push to adopt alternatives for the invasion of France than the traditional OKW plans going through the low-countries again and he found it in Manstein's idea. It was only later when he deteriorated and became even more of an unhinged fuck that we saw the Stalingrad's or Operation Citadel which if I'm mistaken he actually agreed with a general that it was useless fighting the Soviets were prepared for over nothing yet again. The mental downfall of a madman.
I don't understand this? The world has what, 6 or 7 nuclear states, probably a few other ones that haven't stated that they have knowledge or working weapons, but none of the Nato states that have joined recently have that capability
Russia invading another country because of a perceived new nuclear threat is ridiculous, when if USA wanted, they could have destroyed them realistically any time after WW2, or the handful of other nuclear states
In fact Ukraine got rid of its nuclear arsenal to please Russia and Nato, so Russia using it as an excuse is baffling?
If we're talking about historical territory, why not go further? I assume that you're OK with Italy invading Europe if they wanted to reclaim the Roman empire, fair game. Or maybe the Mongals taking back its claims on half of Europe and Russia?
I, and others may be thinking emotionally yes, I'm sure we would all agree with that, but you're not thinking emotionally enough, when war in its true form is when 2 or more countries, cultures, peoples, clans, factions, whatever...hate each other enough to attack each other. Diplomacy should come before war, before emotion gets as far as hatred. After war has started its not diplomacy, its forcing the loser to terms that are set out by the victor(s)
Sure, let's talk through this. From Russian perspective and priors, they've seen two world wars start in Europe and encroach on them in the 20th century. They, during the cold war, invested the Warsaw Pact as a buffer state of sort. Unearthed documents, such as the
6 days to the Rhine plan show that their war plans were basically a defensive nuclear exchange with a push to secure East Germany and the Central European Countries. They were never really the expansionists that the West made them out to be.
NATO is a nuclear entity and it's been expanding since the fall of the Soviet Union, which is ironic to them since it's mission was the containment of the Soviet State. NATO further expanded after the Cold War, adding the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004), Albania and Croatia (2009), Montenegro (2017) and North Macedonia (2020). Of the territories and members added between 1990 and 2020,
all were either formerly part of the Warsaw Pact (including the formerly Soviet Baltic states) or territories of the former Yugoslavia.
In neo-liberal nations who are used to thinking in our terms of democracy as a universal good and freedom and liberty as universal desires (of which I agree), places like China and Russia don't yet see this worldview. Russia sees it's historic buffer states being taken away from them and aligned with a nuclear foe. They see system which are defensive, like AEGIS ashore that we're putting in Poland as a threat as the very same launch system can accompadate nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles that can reach Moscow faster than an ICBM from the Dakotas or an SLBM. They find the NMD system in Poland a threat to MAD, even though it's designed to target Iran. They find this destabilizing and it's not exactly wrong thinking given their history and the mechanics of MAD as has worked over the last 70 years.
I do not wish to engage in emotional talk of hatred and such. I find it useless and without utility here.